Himachal Pradesh High Court
& Post Office Kotla vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 October, 2022
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
.
ON THE 17th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7820 OF 2021.
Between:-
SH. TILAK RAJ SHARMA, SON OF LATE SH.
NATH MAL SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
& POST OFFICE KOTLA, SUB-TEHSIL KOTLA,
DISTRICT KANGRA-176205 (H.P.).
.....PETITIONER.
( BY SH. VARUN THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE H.P. EX-SERVICEMEN CORPORATION,
OPPOSITE HAMIR HOTEL, SAINIK BHAWAN,
HAMIRPUR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR-177001 (H.P.)
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR.
2. THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR,
H.P. EX-SERVICEMEN CORPORATION,
OPPOSITE HAMIR HOTEL, SAINIK BHAWAN,
HAMIRPUR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR-177001(H.P.).
3. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, H.P.
SECRETARIAT, SHIMLA-171002 (H.P.).
4. ACC THROUGH ITS MANAGER LOGISTIC,
BARMANA, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.
......RESPONDENTS.
::: Downloaded on - 19/10/2022 20:01:21 :::CIS
2
(SH. MUKUL SOOD, ADVOCATE, FOR
RESPONDENTS- 1 AND 2)
.
(SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL
WITH SH. RAJINDER DOGRA, SENIOR
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL, SH. VINOD
THAKUR, SH. SHIV PAL MANHANS,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS, SH.
BHUPINDER THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE
GENERAL AND SH. RAJAT CHAUHAN, LAW
OFFICER, FOR RESPONDENT-3)
SH. HET RAM,
RESPONDENT-4)
r ADVOCATE,
(SH. K.D. SOOD, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
FOR
__________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for orders this day,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the following:
ORDER
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the
following substantive reliefs:-
a) That the writ of certiorari may kindly be issued in
favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No.1
and 2, quashing and setting aside the order dated
11-08-2021 at Annexure P-2.
b) That the Writ of certiorari may kindly be issued for
quashing and setting aside the Bye-Laws of H.P. Ex-
servicemen Truck Operators Welfare Working Committee at
Annexure P-3.
c) That the writ of mandamus may be issued directing
the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 to re-attach/re-
enlist the truck No. HP-68-0798 of the petitioner with the
ACC Ltd. (Cement Factory), Barmana, (Bilaspur), so that
further financial loss is not caused to the petitioner.
d) That the respondents No.1 & 2 may be directed to
pay the damages of Rs. 40,000/- per month along with
.
interest @ 9% p.a. from 11-08-2021 ( the date for de-
enlisting the truck) to the date of payment as the petitioner
suffered unexpected loss as he could not generate any
work to his said truck due to old age."
2. The petitioner was admittedly re-employed in Excise
and Taxation Department on 24.09.1988 after his discharge from
the services of Indian Army on medical grounds on 29.11.1980 and
on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service on
30.11.2003. This fact is admitted by the petitioner in the legal notice
and finds mention in the order dated 11.08.2021 (Annexure P-2).
The respondent-Corporation refused to attach the truck of the
petitioner in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP
No.2402 of 2008 titled Baldev Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the action of
respondent in de-listing the truck of the petitioner is absolutely
arbitrary, as the petitioner being an ex-serviceman, himself was
entitled to ply his truck.
4. However, we find no merit in such contention, because
the issue with regard to attachment of truck of ex-servicemen had
come up before this Court in CWP No.2402 of 2008 titled Baldev
Singh vs. H.P. Ex-serviceman Corporation which was decided on
06.01.2011 wherein, as many as 15 directions were given by this
Court to the respondents-Corporation and the State. The H.P.
.
Ex-Servicemen Corporation was directed to ensure that the bye
laws, rules and regulations of the Corporation be amended in line
and in accordance with the 15 directions.
5. Nevertheless, it is only direction No.12, which is
relevant and reads as under:-
"12.xx xx xx In case the ex-serviceman is re-employed, his
truck will not be attached and if his truck has been already
attached and the ex-serviceman re-employed in
Government service/public sector undertakings, Banks etc.
then he shall have to surrender his right to get the truck
attached and the vacant slot shall be given to the ex-
servicemen next in the waiting list. Xx xx xx"
6. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the
aforesaid direction as the petitioner after being discharged from the
army had taken re-employment in Excise and Taxation Department.
The truck of the petitioner was attached with the respondent-
Corporation in the year 2004 and thereafter it was de-listed as he
had already availed of the benefit of re-employment.
7. Once that be the case, obviously no fault can be found
with the orders of the respondent-Corporation in de-listing the truck
of the petitioner and the order passed by the respondents has been
passed strictly in accordance with the judgment rendered by this
Court in CWP No. 2402 of 2008, titled as Baldev Singh Versus
.
Himachal Pradesh Ex-Servicemen Corporation & others,
decided on 06.01.2011.
8. Otherwise also, the Special Leave Petition with regard
to the issue in question stands dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, vide order dated 10.10.2011 and the same has attained
finality. r
9. The issue in question is squarely covered by another
judgment of this Court in CWP No. 2479 of 2015 titled Bachittar
Singh vs. H.P. Ex-servicemen Corporation and another, decided
on 24.06.2016.
10. Consequently, the instant petition being devoid of merit
is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
(Virender Singh)
Judge
17th October, 2022.
(krt)
